Hi Karl, On Jan 6, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Karl Wright wrote:
> The whole question of ease-of-use is what drove this packaging > arrangement. I was told it was unacceptable to not have a working > example out of the box that could be executed in a single line. Build > and execution Instructions which involve obtaining a couple of dozen > jars from other places do not fulfill this criterion. It's unacceptable to not release software according to Apache guidelines. There's some flexibility in those guidelines (whether to include a binary release or not, whether to include jar files in a distro or use Maven, etc.), and then there's not (must include a source release; must have a KEYS file; etc.etc.) Including a working out of the box example might be something that ManifoldCF as a community deems absolutely required for a ManifoldCF release, but it's not absolutely required for an Apache release. Of course, not doing it has its own implications (users won't care about the software; will find it too difficult), but that's another subject. > > The three copies of the dependent jars occur because of the following: > > - There is one copy of the jar that is used by the build > - There are two distinct execution environments, one single-process, > and one multi-process, that are built > - Each execution environment has its own subtree that it executes from Are all of these Jars simply copies of an original Jar, or are they separately licensed? > > If the built environments are no longer distributed, then there will > be one copy of each dependent jar included. I'm leaning towards just > having this minimum distribution since size is apparently a huge issue > here. It's a huge issue everywhere. Your release will be mirrored around the world using Apache's mirroring system. Beyond that it will be likely replicated N times at M companies who are using it. Size *is* a big issue, not just *here*. > I still want to know if the source distribution should have the > forrest-built docs or not, though, or whether it should be up to the > user to build their own docs using Forrest themselves. I would prefer > the former because Forrest is somewhat idiosyncratic, but you guys are > the bosses. Eh, either way is fine with me, and I don't think anyone here should legislate on this. It should be a ManifoldCF community decision IMHO. Cheers, Chris > > Karl > > On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 1:39 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6 January 2011 18:23, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Very well; we will discontinue all binary distributions. >>>> >>>> That's not what I said. >>>> >>>> You can have a binary distribution if you wish, but there must be a >>>> source distribution. >>>> >>> >>> As I said before, it makes no sense to distribute ManifoldCF binaries >>> without complete sources. So we could (I suppose) have a source >>> distribution AND a source+binary distribution. >> >> That would be fine. >> >>> But we could not simply have a binary distribution and a source >>> distribution. >> >> That would also work, but would require binary users to download both >> archives. >> >> == >> >> On a separate matter, I question whether the current packaging is optimal. >> There appear to be 3 copies of every jar in the binary zip file - no >> wonder the file is so large! >> >> Also, many of the included jars are commonly used elsewhere, so the >> consumer may well already have a copy. >> >> Generally, the binary jar consists of the compiled source files only. >> >> Some projects provide additional bundles which include all the >> required dependencies; that might be the way to go here. >> >>> Karl >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
